Reports of a plot to oust Jeremy Corbyn emerged after the vote on military action in Syria. Tom Quinn explains it will not be easy to challenge Corbyn as Labour’s constitution does not provide for a confidence vote on a sitting leader. Moderates could hold another leadership contest during the 2016 party conference, the winner of which might be Corbyn. There is also the option of shadow ministers withrawing their support en masse, yet it is unlikely such action would cause him to resign as Corbyn never had, or relied on, such support.

Despite his firm stance, Jeremy Corbyn has lost a parliamentary vote on military intervention in Syria, in no small part thanks to members of his own party voting with the government. The chaos of Corbyn’s leadership so far seemingly leaves open the question of whether he might resign or be overthrown. Although a sizeable number of Labour MPs voted with the government over Syria, it is clear that the wider party is behind Corbyn. If moderates in the party think this vote might help them get rid of Corbyn as leader, they are very much mistaken. In fact, their options look quite limited.

Labour has no formal mechanism for a confidence vote on a sitting leader. Any move against Corbyn by MPs would need to be a direct leadership challenge. Labour’s constitution makes provision for annual leadership contests when the party is in opposition, but these are scheduled for the annual conference – and the next one isn’t until September 2016. Some anti-Corbynites might regard that as better than nothing and could bide their time until then. Yet that raises more problems.

There has been a clear shift to the left within Labour’s membership. Any restaged leadership contest in which Corbyn or one of his allies stood would in all likelihood result in another overwhelming victory for the left. A recent poll found that Corbyn had high approval ratings among party members. Some have suggested that in the event of a leadership challenge Corbyn could be excluded altogether. Labour’s constitution states that if an election is called to challenge a leader, hopefuls need to secure nominations from 20 per cent of MPs and MEPs to run.

The wording of Labour’s rules is loose and ambiguous so it is not clear whether this 20 per cent threshold applies only to challengers or to the incumbent leader too. One barrister has suggested that it is the former, but if it is the latter, Corbyn could be in trouble. He struggled to reach the 15 per cent threshold set for the election in June ( which was lower in that contest because there was no leader at the time) and managed it only because some MPs “lent” him their nominations. They would be less likely to do so again.

Changing the rules?

Labour’s ruling National Executive Committee (NEC) has reportedly discussed changing the rules to make it clear that the incumbent does not require re-nominating in the event of a challenge. Such a change would have to wait until next year’s party conference.

So, what would happen if there were a challenge next summer in time for the party conference? Presumably, the NEC would make its own ruling – and that body has a pro-Corbyn majority. The last recourse of opponents would be to take it to court. By then, the rules may have changed.

In contrast, if Corbyn resigns, he would leave a vacancy. All candidates would need to be nominated by 15 per cent of MPs to secure a place on the ballot. A left-wing candidate might struggle to do that. It would offer the easiest way back to power for the moderates, which is why Corbyn’s left-wing allies would urge him to remain in post, no matter how much he is attacked.

The left has invested too much in this struggle for the soul of the Labour Party to throw it away now. It needs Corbyn to stay put at least until it has changed the rules on leadership elections – including, perhaps, reducing the nomination threshold for vacancies.

A changed party

One final option would be for shadow ministers to withdraw their support from the leader en masse. The belief has long been that party leaders need the support of their senior colleagues and without it they lose their authority, ending in resignation or ejection. But Corbyn never had any authority among MPs to lose in the first place. He sees himself as a delegate of the grassroots, the personification of intra-party democracy, the head of a great movement. From his perspective, it is the MPs who are out of touch. Indeed, the debate about procedures and putsches somewhat misses the point. Labour is a very different party from what it was just seven months ago. The left has become dominant in every section of the party outside of the PLP, including the unions, the NEC and the individual membership.

Corbyn increasingly looks to the members in his internal battles. He frequently cites the mandate they gave him to shift the party to the left. He went over the MPs’ heads to consult with members over military action in Syria. There have also been suggestions that he might call a membership plebiscite on Trident. Corbyn’s support remains minimal in the PLP, but the latter is increasingly adrift from the party outside parliament. Conceding a free vote on Syria may have been a tactical retreat to avoid the embarrassment of front-bench resignations, but Corbyn will claim it as vindication and depict those who backed airstrikes as an out-of-touch minority. Labour’s moderate MPs are looking horribly exposed.

It has become a common refrain to say that things cannot continue as they are in the Labour Party. But the presumption that unity will soon return through compromise, or that the left will be dispatched back into the wilderness no longer looks sound. It may instead be Labour’s moderates who are a step closer to defeat.

Tom Quinn, Senior Lecturer, Department of Government, University of Essex. His research interests include British party politics, the UK coalition agreement, leadership elections, and the Labour Party’s relationship with the trade unions.

5 Comments

Concur with comments critiquing use of the term ‘moderates’. Suggest as replacements -” Right Wingers” “conservatives (small ‘c’)’ ‘neo-liberals’ or ‘(neo)-Thatcherites’ – regarding military intervention and Trident, the term ‘imperialists’ seems to fit people like Hilary Blair (Benn)

Im one of the ones inspired to move to Labour because of Corbyn. I dont recognise the opinion in this article. I dont agree with everything he stands for, but then i like all politicians to have a free vote on matters that cross all parties. Its more representative, healthy, trustworthy and realistic. My only fearvis Corbyn is not young enough to see it through so i hope against hope some other semi polished one size fits all, doesn’t stab his back to revert us all back to where and why Labour lost the last two elections.

This is a good analysis of the structures in the party but please will you stop calling the people on the right of the party ‘moderates’? They are not moderates. They support PFI, privatisation, welfare cuts, austerity, just not as much as the Conservatives. They claim to be the centre but they have pulled the party so far to the right that anything opposed to this looks very left wing. They are also completely out of touch with ordinary people and members of their party, because Tony Blair made Labour, a collectivist movement, into an authoritarian party machine once in power. Corbyn isn’t going over their heads, he is democratising the party. And the positions that Corbyn and his supporters are to the left but they were mainstream Labour positions before Blair – nationalise railways, abandon Trident, stand up for the poor. None of that is controversial and actually it’s quite popular. Take a look at Spain.

We use cookies on this site to understand how you use our content, and to give you the best browsing experience. To accept cookies, click continue. To find out more about cookies and change your preferences, visit our Cookie Policy.